Comics

What do you think of Xi, one of the richest man in China? Is it okay that he’s so wealthy when other people go hungry? Or is inequality only not okay in western countries?

In the 2023 Global Hunger Index, China is one of 20 countries with a GHI score of less than 5. These countries are not assigned individual ranks, but rather are collectively ranked 1–20 out of the 125 countries with sufficient data to calculate 2023 GHI scores. Differences between their scores are minimal. With a score under 5, China has a level of hunger that is low.

https://www.globalhungerindex.org/china.html

Dietary habits in China have undergone profound changes in the past decade. Since the Economic Reform, the average disposable income has picked up rapidly, which led to a surge in food spending in both urban and rural households. Over the past four decades, China has drastically reduced its proportion of undernourished people, from 30 percent in 1979 to less than 2.5 percent. Today, meat and fish, once considered symbols of wealth, are part of the daily diet of ordinary people. Additionally, similar to its western counterparts, China's emerging middle class has become increasingly conscious of the importance of a healthy diet.

What Chinese eat and drink

The rapid economic development of China and its well-developed transportation infrastructure have allowed Chinese to purchase food of all types from all over the country. As of 2021, nearly nine out of ten Chinese could afford a healthy meal. On Chinese dining tables, grain still dominates, but meat, vegetables, and fruits are gaining popularity. Between 2021 and 2026, China's protein intake is expected to grow by over 10 percent, significantly higher than any other region of the world.

Although undernourishment is no longer a threat to the public in China, a fully healthy diet is still a long way off. A major eating problem affecting the public is excessive consumption of sugar and salt. As of 2023, China's per capita salt intake exceeded 17.7 grams per day, more than three times the amount recommended by the WHO. A primary reason for the excessive salt intake was the dietary tradition of eating sauce, preserved vegetables, and cured meats. Furthermore, sodium intake was also influenced by the increasing consumption of restaurant and packaged foods.

Towards a healthier eating environment

Facing those challenges, China has implemented various campaigns and promotions to raise public’s awareness of healthy eating, including establishing a national nutrition plan. Traditional concepts like Yin and Yang, "food and medicine are synonymous" are still widely believed by the majority of Chinese, but many Chinese are embracing modern dietary knowledge such as organic and sugar-free diets. In 2022, over 55,000 organic products were available to Chinese consumers, tripling from a decade ago. It is estimated that the naturally healthy food market in China will grow by 10 billion U.S. dollars between 2016 and 2021, outpacing the rest of the world by a wide margin.

https://www.statista.com/topics/11504/eating-behavior-in-china/

It literally took two seconds to research this online, and I found many sources that contradict your claim, even by Western outlets.

I recommend watching this video:

How can China be socialist if it has a stock market? Understanding the Chinese economy

This is an article from this video:

China’s 5 most affluent billionaires lose $3.1B in collective net worth

Also, the US and Isn'trael were the only nations that voted against a United Nations committee's draft that asserted food was a human right:

See, I’m allowed to criticize my government on the internet. I disagree with a great many things that the Biden administration is up to.

1. On gangsterism: Your actions and opinions are not a threat to the status quo. Your nominal political government is not the most powerful governing force in your country, it is beholden to capital and those who guard it. If your actions were considered a sufficient threat you will quickly find yourself effectively imprisoned, killed or nullified. You may for example find yourself branded as a terrorist or a terrorist sympathiser. You may find yourself branded as a target of the police state. You may be accused of being an enemy state proxy. There is a litany of examples domestically. Internationally there is no pretense of civility, America pretty much resorts straight to gangsterism.

2. The siege against socialism: You are comparing a country under hybrid wars by the US with your supposed requirements of freedom. That country is under seige by yours. Your western media openly admits they have trouble infiltrating with their spying and attempts at colour revolutions. Your country has surrounded that country with your military. You supply vassal states and governments around your target with arms and funding.

3. On the power of capital: Capital inequality is more important when that capital has political sway. If you have a governing system more powerful than capital then that significance is increasingly taken away. Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless; socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism. It is a transition which cannot be expected to be immediate; they have to navigate this while being under the constant threat of imperialism.

4. On freedom: Freedom is gained through understanding the scientific laws around us including those of the political economy. If you feed the poor you may be called a saint but if you question why they are hungry you may branded a communist. America for example has awful rates of homelessness, lack of healthcare and lack of education; basic neccesities for a dignified life. There is no guarantee for those freedoms and America has fought against those guarantees globally and domestically at the protest of socialist states. It has the highest rates of incarceration, significantly higher than China; what does that and all of the above say about your supposed freedoms? Necessitous men are not free men.

5. On poverty: Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor and under the tyranny of capital. Countries like China have democratic centralism; a system that is signifcantly more democratic than the US. China since its inception as a socialist state has steadily increased life expectancy (beats the US now), one of the fastest improvements in all developmental parameters and has the fastest eradication of absolute poverty the world has ever seen; 800 million people. In fact if you take China out of the equation global poverty has actually got worse. You have to consider what are the democratic feedback loops that are in place for this to happen? In bourgoise democracies you debate over which political party gets to be in power to screw you over. In democratic centralism you debate over which policies are to be enacted. Have you ever for example allowed to decide once your district gets funding how that is allocated? Have you ever been consulted over whether your banking system gets bailed out? How many wars did you have a democratic say in? Have you ever had any reasonable political power if a billionaire screws you over?

6. On authoritarianism: All systems of governance have a degree of authority, the question is which classes do they hold the authority on behalf of? Even a crude outline of democracy has authoritarianism; if 60% people vote one way and 40% of people vote another then that 60% has theoretically authority over that 40%. In capitalist countries the authoritarianism is on behalf of the capitalist class. In the imperialist cores such as the US they are able to some degree give concessions to the non-capitalist classes subsidised by the loot of imperialism; the superexploitation of other countries. Therefore a signifcant portion of the American non-capitalist classes fight over these crumbs and have the privilege to dismiss the crimes against humanity globally the US has done to subsidise these crumbs. When you are arguing Democrats are better we have to question for whom and at whose expense. You're essentially admitting that you believe that you are sufficiently exempt from the future (and current) crimes against humanity that Democrats will enact; you are domestically and on the world stage therefore in a privileged class.

Please consider the above explanations are just an outline. When one first learns about, let's say, physics one is introduced to newtonian mechanics when reality it is much more sophisticated including general/special relativities and quantum theory. Marxism is a science of political economy and therefore theory is continually being tested, practised, developed, and expanded on. It is not a religion and we are not priests. I have attempted to do a whistle-stop tour that is by no means complete.

If you taken the time to read this then I thank you for your patience. The first step, no matter how painful, is to come to terms with your own bigotry and ignorance. The next step is self-education; your state is not going to help you. Most people in your position will ignore these two steps because at some level they benefit materially from this exploitation; they are privileged enough to ignore the oppression and have no perceived incentive to listen to us.

A lot of us were liberals once. We are asking you to betray your class for the betterment of society. As someone smarter than myself has stated: you can't resist for very long a truth you discover for yourself.

Why Socialism, by Albert Einstein https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

Why Marxism: https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

MAXIMUM PROJECTION

You're allowed to talk shit about the president because it doesn't do shit, genius. You, a random on the internet without contacts or influence, saying something that most peoples already think anyway about a mere cog of the entire machine who's gonna sit at the desk for 8 years maximum isn't worth censoring because it's not a threat to the status quo, it is the status quo.

Try doing something that's actually a threat to the status quo and see how much free speech you're still allowed then. The US has jailed, tortured and killed many peoples for saying thing the US regime didn't like.